Clarity Has Been Achieved

CLASS-CONSCIOUS WORKERS, PLEASE NOTE

Published:Trudovaya PravdaNo. 7, June 5, 1914.

      Published according to the text inTrudovaya Pravda.Source:Lenin
	  Collected Works,

      Progress Publishers,1972,

      Moscow,Volume 20,

      pages351-355.Translated:Bernard Isaacs and The Late Joe FinebergTranscription\Markup:R. CymbalaPublic Domain:Lenin Internet Archive

      (2004).You may freely copy, distribute,
	display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and
	commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet
	Archive” as your source.•README

InPut PravdyNo. 63, the Russian
Social-Democratic Labour group made a last attempt to ascertain whether the
six deputies (the Chkheidze group) now intend—after the vast majority of
the class-conscious workers have condemned their alliance with the
liquidators—to take steps towards an agreement with the Russian
Social-Democratic Labour group in the
Duma.[1]

TheRussian Social-Democratic Labour group asked the
“Social-Democratic group” whether it now intendedunreservedlyto recognise the decisions of the entire Marxist body of 1903 (the
Programme) and of 1908–10 (condemnation of the liquidators). Why the
Russian Social-Democratic Labour group put this question in the forefront,
is clear. The decisions of 1903, 1908 and 1910 were adoptedprior to
any splitsbetween the Marxists and the liquidators. These decisions
are the banner of all Marxists. If any agreement between the Russian
Social-Democratic Labour group and the “Social-Democratic group” is at
all possible, then it is of course possible only on the basis of the
unqualified recognition of these decisions, which were adopted before the
split.

Inissue No. 2 ofNasha Rabochaya Gazeta, the Chkheidze group
published an “Open Reply” in which clarity is at last achieved and which
therefore deserves the most serious attention from all workers who
seriously try to understand the causes of the disagreements, and want
genuine unity.

1. THE PROGRAMME AND THE NATIONAL QUESTION

Atthe MarxistCongresswhich drew up the Programme (1903),
the Bundists (Jewish liquidators) proposed that a demand be included in the
Programme for “the establishmentof institutions that will guarantee them complete freedom of cultural
development”. This was opposed by the present-day liquidators Martynov,
Martov and Koltsov. They argued, quite correctly, that this demand ran
counter to the international principles of Social-Democracy. This demand
wasrejectedby all votes against the vote of the Bundists (see
the Minutes).

Marxistsassert that the “establishment of institutions” is the same
“cultural-national autonomy”, which Social-Democracy rejects.

Intheir “Open Reply” the six deputies assert the contrary. They say:
we advocated the “establishment of institutions”, but we did not advocate
cultural-national autonomy.

Verywell, we say in reply;let us assumefor a moment that
the two are not the same.But the Congress also rejected the“establishment of institutions”. You know that perfectly
well. You know that, to please the nationalists,you have retreated
from the Programme. It was for this violation of the Programme that
the Bundists, whose proposals the Congress rejected, complimented you.

Afterthe Social-Democratic group made its declaration at the opening
of the Fourth Duma, they wrote:

“Itmay be pointed out that the formula of the
   Social-Democrats [i. e., liquidators] lacked clarity. That is quite
   true.But the important thing is that the workers’ deputies[i. e., Chkheidze’s supporters]abandoned the rigid point of viewon which the official theory on the national question is based.”
   (ZeitNo. 9, editorial, column 3.)

“Itmay be pointed out that the formula of the
   Social-Democrats [i. e., liquidators] lacked clarity. That is quite
   true.But the important thing is that the workers’ deputies[i. e., Chkheidze’s supporters]abandoned the rigid point of viewon which the official theory on the national question is based.”
   (ZeitNo. 9, editorial, column 3.)

The“official theory” is nothing more nor less than theProgramme. The Bundists compliment Chkheidze and his friends forinfringing the Programme. The Russian Social-Democratic Labour
group asked: Is the “Social-Democratic group” willing to retract this
infringement of the Programme?

Thereply was clear: “This formula [i. e., establishment of
institutions] contains absolutely nothing that the Social-Democratic group
should retract” (cf. “Open Reply”).

Werefuse to retract this infringement of the Programme—such was the
reply of the “Social-Democratic group”.

2. THE DECISION OF 1908

TheRussian Social-Democratic Labour group next asked the
“Social-Democratic group” whether it was willing to recognise the 1908
decision of the Marxists, which was recently endorsed also by the Lettish
conciliators.

Thisdecision reads as follows:

“Liquidationismis an attempt on the part of a certain
   section of the Party intelligentsia to liquidate [i. e., to dissolve,
   destroy, abolish, put an end to] the existing Party organisation, and to
   substitute for it an amorphous federation acting within legal hounds
   [i. e., within the law, in open existence] at all costs, even at the cost
   of openly abandoning the programme, tactics and traditions [i. e., the
   preceding experience] of the Party.”

“Liquidationismis an attempt on the part of a certain
   section of the Party intelligentsia to liquidate [i. e., to dissolve,
   destroy, abolish, put an end to] the existing Party organisation, and to
   substitute for it an amorphous federation acting within legal hounds
   [i. e., within the law, in open existence] at all costs, even at the cost
   of openly abandoning the programme, tactics and traditions [i. e., the
   preceding experience] of the Party.”

Andthis decision goes on to say that “it is necessary to wage a
most relentless ideological and organisational struggle against these
liquidationist attempts” (cf. Report,
p. 38).[2]

Thisdecision was adopted by the united Marxist body in the presence of
representatives of all groups, including the liquidators (Dan, Axelrod and
others), the Bundists, and so forth. It was adopted in December 1908,beforethere were any splits.

TheRussian Social-Democratic Labour group asked the Chkheidze group
whether it acceptedthis1908 decision, which condemned
liquidationism.

Whatdid the Chkheidze group say in reply?

Nota word! Not a sound! It treated the decision of 1908 as
though it did not exist. Incredible, but a fact. And this silence is more
eloquent than words. It reveals an incrediblyarrogantdisregard
for decisions. Decisions that are not to my liking are simply
non-existent—such are the ethics of the liquidationist deputies.

Thelatter acted in the same way when it came to accepting deputy
Jagiello into the group. It was pointed out to them that the 1908 decision
rejected “unity” with Jagiello’s non-Social-Democratic party. But to this
they replied that in 1907, i. e., a year before this decision was adopted,
the Social-Democratic group in the Second Duma had accepted as members the
Lithuanian deputies who were unquestionably Social-Democrats. This means
openly mocking at decisions.

3. THE 1910 DECISION

Thisdecision reads as follows:

“Thehistorical situation in the Social-Democratic
   movement in the period of bourgeois counter-revolution inevitably gives
   rise—as a manifestation of the bourgeois influence on the
   proletariat—on the one hand, to repudiation of the illegal
   Social-Democratic Party, belittling of its role and importance, and
   attempts to whittle down the programmatic and tactical tasks and the
   slogans of consistent Social-Democracy, etc., and on the other hand, to
   repudiation of Social-Democratic activities in the Duma and of the
   utilisation of legal possibilities, failure to understand the importance of
   either, inability to apply consistent Social-Democratic tactics to the
   specific historical conditions prevailing at the present time, etc.“Aninalienable element of Social-Democratic tactics
   under these conditions is the elimination of both these deviations by
   extending and intensifying Social-Democratic activities in all fields of
   the proletarian class struggle, and explanation of the dangers of these
   deviations.”

“Thehistorical situation in the Social-Democratic
   movement in the period of bourgeois counter-revolution inevitably gives
   rise—as a manifestation of the bourgeois influence on the
   proletariat—on the one hand, to repudiation of the illegal
   Social-Democratic Party, belittling of its role and importance, and
   attempts to whittle down the programmatic and tactical tasks and the
   slogans of consistent Social-Democracy, etc., and on the other hand, to
   repudiation of Social-Democratic activities in the Duma and of the
   utilisation of legal possibilities, failure to understand the importance of
   either, inability to apply consistent Social-Democratic tactics to the
   specific historical conditions prevailing at the present time, etc.

“Aninalienable element of Social-Democratic tactics
   under these conditions is the elimination of both these deviations by
   extending and intensifying Social-Democratic activities in all fields of
   the proletarian class struggle, and explanation of the dangers of these
   deviations.”

Thisdecision was adoptedunanimously, prior to any splits, in
the presence of representatives ofallgroups. It condemns
liquidationism and otzovism.

TheRussian Social-Democratic Labour group asked the
“Social-Democratic group” whether it recognised that decision. The latter
replied: “The 1910 decisions do not even contain thewordliquidationism”.

The“word” is not there! Butwhomdid the entire Marxist
body have in mind when it condemned the “repudiation of the illegal
Social-Democratic Party, the belittling of its role and importance”? Whom
if not the liquidators?

Lastly,we have a most authentic document, published three years ago
and refuted by nobody, a document emanating from all the “national”
Marxists (Letts, Bundists and Poles), and from Trotsky (the liquidators
cannot imagine better witnesses). This document plainly states that “it
would in fact be desirable to call the trend mentioned in the resolution
liquidationism, which must be combated....”

Howcan the deputies have the effrontery to mislead the workers in this
unblushing manner?

The“Social-Democratic group” refuses to recognise the 1910
decisions! Instead, it declares that it is in “complete agreement” with
the liquidationistNasha Rabochaya Gazeta.

The1903, 1908 and 1910 decisions of the entire Marxist body do not
exist for the liquidationist deputies. For them only the “decisions” of
the liquidationist newspaper exist.

4. “TRENDS”

Whileflouting direct decisions and ignoring the will of the workers,
the “Social-Democratic group” dilates on the usefulness of all “trends
of Marxism”.

Marxistsall over the world take theworkers’ organisationsas
their basis. In our country, however, some people want to take elusive
“trends” as their basis. In Germany and in fact all over the world, the
Social-Democrats unite theworkers, their local cells,
organisations and groups. In our country, some people want to unite
“trends”.

“Alltrends among the Marxists”! But among the liquidators alone
there are at least two “trends”:BorbaandNasha Rabochaya
Gazeta, disputing with each other as to which of them is the best
custodian of the “August precepts”.

Theidea of uniting ten “trends”, all of them isolated from the
masses, is hopeless. The idea of unitingall workerswilling to
build up the entire Marxist body is a great cause, which is being
accomplished before our very eyes with the ardent support of the Russian
Social-Democratic Labour group.

Clarityhas been achieved. The overwhelming majority of the workers
(see the returns of the insurance elections, group collections and the
correspondence between the workers’ groups and the two groups in the Duma)
have declared in favour of the Marxists, in favour of the Russian
Social-Democratic Labour group, and against the liquidators. The August
bloc has broken down; the Lettish Social-Democrats and Buryanov have left
them, and the supporters of An and ofBorbaare leaving them; the
six deputies grouped around Chkheidze have joinedthe worstand
most liquidationist fragment of the August bloc.

Theworkers must draw their own conclusions.

[1]PutPravdyNo. 50, for March 30 (April 12), 1914 published the
resolution of the Fourth Congress of the Social-Democrats of the Lettish
Region concerning the split in the Social-Democratic group in the Fourth
Duma. The resolution stressed the need for unity of the Duma
Social-Democratic group on the basis of acceptance of the Programme and
Rules of the Party and the Party decisions. (See pp. 177–51 of this
volume.)

Inconnection with this resolution of the Lettish Congress, the same
issue ofPut Pravdypublished an “Open Enquiry” to the
Menshevik’ deputies as to their attitude towards the principles advanced by
the Lettish workers. This enquiry of the Bolshevik newspaper was ignored by
the Mensheviks. Thereupon, the Russian Social-Democratic Labour group in
the Duma published an “Open Letter” inPut PravdyNo. 63 for
April 17, 1914 in which they demanded from the Mensheviks a clear and
definite reply to the question put to them.

The“Open Letter” evoked an “Open Reply” by the Mensheviks, which
was published inNasha Rabochaya Gazeta, May 4 (17). This reply is
dealt with in the present article.

[2]Leninis quoting the resolution of the Fifth All-Russia Conference of
the R.S.D.L.P.—the “All-Russia Conference of the Russian
Social-Democratic Labour Party. (In December 1908.)” It was published by
newspaperProletary, Paris, 1909, p. 38.